COMMENTARY
IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
In Iraq amid the daily suicide bombings, sectarian murders and United States- led military sweeps of the neighborhoods, you know the monotonous routine news out of that benighted country, comes news that all is not well in the relationship between the American government and it’s wholly owned subsidiary-the Maliki government. If one is to believe the recently returned Anthony Cordesman from the Center for International Strategic Studies who apparently, from the number of times I have seen his name used, is the only person on the planet whom the media can find to comment on the record and in his own name on the situation there, none of the three (or more) sectarian factions that have some relationship to the governing apparatus nor the U.S. or Iraqi military is happy with his leadership. If memory serves Mr. Maliki was about a 27th round draft choice in the lottery to find some one acceptable to govern Iraq a couple of years ago. Well, you reap what you sow. But that is not the important point today. What is important is that in light of the ‘big day’ September 15th status report forthcoming from General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker how long will the Maliki government hold and who will or will not bring it down. Over the last five years I have warned repeatedly that Iraq is not Vietnam. And on most days that is ever so true. But I would point out that in November 1963 the Diem government in Vietnam was unceremoniously overthrown with America’s, aty least, tacit, blessing. And, my friends, the Diem government seemed in comparison to have been one hundred times stronger and in control of the situation than the current Iraqi government. In any case, Mr. Maliki may soon be joining us in calling for the immediate unconditional withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq in order to save his own skin. Well, what the hell, those of us who support that slogan have a ‘big tent’ approach to building an opposition. Come on in.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
A NOTE ON THE CURRENT MARKET VOLATILITY
COMMENTARY
FOR A MORATORIUM ON MORTAGE FORECLOSURES
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
In a commentary earlier this year I argued for a moratorium on home mortgage foreclosures as a defensive act on behalf of the ‘little people’ who were being squeezed out by their inability to pay the adjustable interest rate hikes that came with many such housing loans. That call is still appropriate today. Obviously this demand has nothing to do with the fight for socialism, as such, but if we had workers party congressmen or senators we would have them submit such legislation to Congress. Moreover, I believe that we would also want to introduce legislation for regulation of the unchecked financial services industry that has wrecked havoc on the backs of working people, wittingly or unwittingly. Since I first argued for the moratorium the fallout from the bad loans and other problems that have trickled down as a result has created an extremely volatile, and potentially destructive, economic situation for working people who depend on credit to make ends meet. Thus a couple of notes on episodic economic fluctuations seem appropriate.
I make no bones about the fact that I am not an economist, Marxist or otherwise. My relationship with the ‘dismal’ science of political economy is weighted toward the political end not the economic one. Oh sure, I have read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and, of course, Karl Marx’s Das Capital and some of the commentaries on these works. Thus I have a sense of the classical underpinning of the capitalist mode of production but as for the various instruments, especially the financial ones, which drive the day to day modern capitalist economies I admit my ignorance. In my defense I would argue that while some Marxists had better study these workings (just not this writer) getting caught up in the minutia of the capitalist mode of production is not decisive. If one assumes, as I do, that the capitalist mode of production has played out its progressive historic role then the real fight is not over the ramifications of the day to day fluctuations of the market but the need to overthrow it-a political question. The capitalist mode of production, its operators, apologists and hangers-on need to be pushed out-there is no other way.
As if to underline the above sentiment I have been recently reading Irving Howe and Lewis Coser’s History of the American Communist Party that I will review in this space later. The most interesting section of that work concerns the ‘third period’ Communist International strategy and tactics. This policy, that held sway from about 1928 until 1935 as the official international line, was predicated on a ‘final collapse’ of capitalism. For those not familiar with the period this is the time when the Communist International was calling virtually any non-Stalinist politcal formation ‘social fascist’. The most famous, or rather infamous, result of that strategy was the refusal of the German Communists to unite with the Social Democrats to form a workers united front in order to fight off Hitler’s advances in the early 1930’s. We are all painfully aware of the results. The point for today, and I have seen it come up enough to note it, is to not directly tie general economic trends with political action. If not opposed and defeated the capitalist will muddle through one way or another. Thus, in the end the economic issues dominate but in the meantime it is about politics.
As a kind of subset of that last idea the fact that many of our ‘people’ are being squeezed to the wall by today’s credit crunch would seemingly create conditions for a fight back. Right? Alas, in the short run those affected are too demoralized to fight and the next layer above them is afraid they are next so economic downturns do not necessarily favor militant political action. Along this same line I would note, however, that their ‘people’ –the capitalist investors, jobbers and brokers are not going to the wall on this. It is our ‘people’ who wind up with the bad credit record, monetary losses and loss of whatever sense of self worth home ownership brings. To dramatically bring this point home a recent article in the financial section of a Boston newspaper highlighted the demise of one of their ‘best and brightest’ capital managers who had to close his financial operation at the end of July when the creditors clamored for cash. This manager was no ‘fly by night’ operator but had been a star in the management of Harvard University’s 29 billion dollar endowment fund (now 34 billion, as of August 23). This brought many rewards among them a nice house in the very exclusive town of Wellesley, a suburb of Boston. At some point this manager left Harvard’s management team and went out to run his own financial operation and snagged 500 million from the Harvard endowment to work with, among other high end clients. When the crash came this operator had to close up not however before losing 350 million dollars of the Harvard endowment and smaller sums for other clients. His response- a heartfelt e-mail message of sorrow to all those who had lost money through his poor management. Yes, I can see the tears streaming down your eyes after hearing this story. Not to worry though- he is NOT losing his house. Enough said.
FOR A MORATORIUM ON MORTAGE FORECLOSURES
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
In a commentary earlier this year I argued for a moratorium on home mortgage foreclosures as a defensive act on behalf of the ‘little people’ who were being squeezed out by their inability to pay the adjustable interest rate hikes that came with many such housing loans. That call is still appropriate today. Obviously this demand has nothing to do with the fight for socialism, as such, but if we had workers party congressmen or senators we would have them submit such legislation to Congress. Moreover, I believe that we would also want to introduce legislation for regulation of the unchecked financial services industry that has wrecked havoc on the backs of working people, wittingly or unwittingly. Since I first argued for the moratorium the fallout from the bad loans and other problems that have trickled down as a result has created an extremely volatile, and potentially destructive, economic situation for working people who depend on credit to make ends meet. Thus a couple of notes on episodic economic fluctuations seem appropriate.
I make no bones about the fact that I am not an economist, Marxist or otherwise. My relationship with the ‘dismal’ science of political economy is weighted toward the political end not the economic one. Oh sure, I have read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and, of course, Karl Marx’s Das Capital and some of the commentaries on these works. Thus I have a sense of the classical underpinning of the capitalist mode of production but as for the various instruments, especially the financial ones, which drive the day to day modern capitalist economies I admit my ignorance. In my defense I would argue that while some Marxists had better study these workings (just not this writer) getting caught up in the minutia of the capitalist mode of production is not decisive. If one assumes, as I do, that the capitalist mode of production has played out its progressive historic role then the real fight is not over the ramifications of the day to day fluctuations of the market but the need to overthrow it-a political question. The capitalist mode of production, its operators, apologists and hangers-on need to be pushed out-there is no other way.
As if to underline the above sentiment I have been recently reading Irving Howe and Lewis Coser’s History of the American Communist Party that I will review in this space later. The most interesting section of that work concerns the ‘third period’ Communist International strategy and tactics. This policy, that held sway from about 1928 until 1935 as the official international line, was predicated on a ‘final collapse’ of capitalism. For those not familiar with the period this is the time when the Communist International was calling virtually any non-Stalinist politcal formation ‘social fascist’. The most famous, or rather infamous, result of that strategy was the refusal of the German Communists to unite with the Social Democrats to form a workers united front in order to fight off Hitler’s advances in the early 1930’s. We are all painfully aware of the results. The point for today, and I have seen it come up enough to note it, is to not directly tie general economic trends with political action. If not opposed and defeated the capitalist will muddle through one way or another. Thus, in the end the economic issues dominate but in the meantime it is about politics.
As a kind of subset of that last idea the fact that many of our ‘people’ are being squeezed to the wall by today’s credit crunch would seemingly create conditions for a fight back. Right? Alas, in the short run those affected are too demoralized to fight and the next layer above them is afraid they are next so economic downturns do not necessarily favor militant political action. Along this same line I would note, however, that their ‘people’ –the capitalist investors, jobbers and brokers are not going to the wall on this. It is our ‘people’ who wind up with the bad credit record, monetary losses and loss of whatever sense of self worth home ownership brings. To dramatically bring this point home a recent article in the financial section of a Boston newspaper highlighted the demise of one of their ‘best and brightest’ capital managers who had to close his financial operation at the end of July when the creditors clamored for cash. This manager was no ‘fly by night’ operator but had been a star in the management of Harvard University’s 29 billion dollar endowment fund (now 34 billion, as of August 23). This brought many rewards among them a nice house in the very exclusive town of Wellesley, a suburb of Boston. At some point this manager left Harvard’s management team and went out to run his own financial operation and snagged 500 million from the Harvard endowment to work with, among other high end clients. When the crash came this operator had to close up not however before losing 350 million dollars of the Harvard endowment and smaller sums for other clients. His response- a heartfelt e-mail message of sorrow to all those who had lost money through his poor management. Yes, I can see the tears streaming down your eyes after hearing this story. Not to worry though- he is NOT losing his house. Enough said.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
HANDS OFF IRAN!!
COMMENTARY
The latest news out of Washington is that the infamous Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been put on the Bush Administration’s list of ‘terror’ organizations. That means that, formally at least, any ‘material aid’ to that organization, a shadowy appparatus connnected by many threads to the Iranian state, is subject to criminal sanction-if not more. Of course, these days everything to the left of the American Republican Party, and even there some elements are suspect, has been accused of ‘materially aiding’ some enemy. However, in the red-hot tension of the Iranian situation this move has the uncanny look of a statement of war. I have been bothered at least since last year’s Seymour Hersh April 2006 New Yorker expose about the Bush Administration’s push to war with Iran-under whatever pretext. Clearly, although the debacle in Iraq has cut off many direct options toward an overthrow in Iran there is nevertheless still an appetite by the Bush-Cheney remnant of the government to go out in a blaze of glory. And what better way that to get revenge for that nasty Revolutionary Guard-driven American Embassy hostage-taking of almost 30 years ago. We best keep vigilant on this one. And while we have nothing politically in common with the Revolutionary Guard and mullahs who control the situation in Iran and offer them no political support we do not 'outsource' the job of changing the situation there to American imperialism. HANDS OFF IRAN!
The latest news out of Washington is that the infamous Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been put on the Bush Administration’s list of ‘terror’ organizations. That means that, formally at least, any ‘material aid’ to that organization, a shadowy appparatus connnected by many threads to the Iranian state, is subject to criminal sanction-if not more. Of course, these days everything to the left of the American Republican Party, and even there some elements are suspect, has been accused of ‘materially aiding’ some enemy. However, in the red-hot tension of the Iranian situation this move has the uncanny look of a statement of war. I have been bothered at least since last year’s Seymour Hersh April 2006 New Yorker expose about the Bush Administration’s push to war with Iran-under whatever pretext. Clearly, although the debacle in Iraq has cut off many direct options toward an overthrow in Iran there is nevertheless still an appetite by the Bush-Cheney remnant of the government to go out in a blaze of glory. And what better way that to get revenge for that nasty Revolutionary Guard-driven American Embassy hostage-taking of almost 30 years ago. We best keep vigilant on this one. And while we have nothing politically in common with the Revolutionary Guard and mullahs who control the situation in Iran and offer them no political support we do not 'outsource' the job of changing the situation there to American imperialism. HANDS OFF IRAN!
ADIEU, KARL ROVE
COMMENTARY
A SAVAGE CLASS WARRIOR LEAVES BUSH TO HIS OWN DEVICES
Well by now everyone among the ‘chattering classes’ knows that Republican President George Bush’s ‘evil counselor’, one Karl Rove, has like so many in the recent past abandoned the sinking ship U.S.S. Bush and gone off to seek greener pastures in the hills of Texas. However, unlike most of the Bush ilk, the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz to a name a couple, I will miss Karl Rove as a target. Why? I will make a confession based on a very long experience in politics- I get along better with and better understand right wing ideologues than the usual mushy ‘consultant’ types who populate today’s political scene. The ‘band aid guys’ and the ‘scotch tape gals’ whose political program is a small grab bag of ‘nice’ things to tweak the capitalist system while leaving it intact and that solve nothing leave me cold. One only needs to mention the name of the apparently recently retired Democratic Party consultant and perennially ‘loser’ Robert Schrum to bring this point home.
Give me the hardball players, the real bourgeois class warriors, any day. They know there is a class struggle going on as well as I do and know and that, in the final analysis, it is a fight to the finish. And who will dare say that Karl Rove was not the hell-bent king of that crowd. Anyone who could get a genuine dolt like George Bush elected twice Governor of Texas and twice President of the United States without flinching knows his business. Imagine if Rove had had a real political street fighter like Richard Nixon for a client. Yes, I know in the end Mr. Rove and I will be shooting from different sides of the barricades but Karl was a real evil genius and I will miss that big target.
Karl Rove honed two basic propositions that Marxists can appreciate, even if only from an adversarial position. One was the above-mentioned sense of the vagaries of the class struggle for the bourgeois class that he has so faithfully represented. How he was able to grab the dirt poor and against the wall farmers of places like Kansas and the desperately poor of the small towns of the ‘Rust Belt’ as cannon fodder voters for a party that has not represented plebian interests since at least the 1870’s is worthy of study. The second was his notion, parliamentary-centered to be sure, of a ‘vanguard’ party. What? Karl Rove as some kind of closet Leninist? No. However, his proposition that the Republican party should cater to its social conservative base and drag whoever it could in their wake is a piece of political wisdom that leftists should think through more. That is a much better political approach than to rely on the current dominant ‘popular front’ strategy of organizing on the basis of the lowest common denominator issues whittled down to a meaningless point just to avoid antagonizing the Democrats instead of fighting for what is necessary. Yes, one can sometimes learn something from one’s political adversaries- Adieu, Karl.
A SAVAGE CLASS WARRIOR LEAVES BUSH TO HIS OWN DEVICES
Well by now everyone among the ‘chattering classes’ knows that Republican President George Bush’s ‘evil counselor’, one Karl Rove, has like so many in the recent past abandoned the sinking ship U.S.S. Bush and gone off to seek greener pastures in the hills of Texas. However, unlike most of the Bush ilk, the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz to a name a couple, I will miss Karl Rove as a target. Why? I will make a confession based on a very long experience in politics- I get along better with and better understand right wing ideologues than the usual mushy ‘consultant’ types who populate today’s political scene. The ‘band aid guys’ and the ‘scotch tape gals’ whose political program is a small grab bag of ‘nice’ things to tweak the capitalist system while leaving it intact and that solve nothing leave me cold. One only needs to mention the name of the apparently recently retired Democratic Party consultant and perennially ‘loser’ Robert Schrum to bring this point home.
Give me the hardball players, the real bourgeois class warriors, any day. They know there is a class struggle going on as well as I do and know and that, in the final analysis, it is a fight to the finish. And who will dare say that Karl Rove was not the hell-bent king of that crowd. Anyone who could get a genuine dolt like George Bush elected twice Governor of Texas and twice President of the United States without flinching knows his business. Imagine if Rove had had a real political street fighter like Richard Nixon for a client. Yes, I know in the end Mr. Rove and I will be shooting from different sides of the barricades but Karl was a real evil genius and I will miss that big target.
Karl Rove honed two basic propositions that Marxists can appreciate, even if only from an adversarial position. One was the above-mentioned sense of the vagaries of the class struggle for the bourgeois class that he has so faithfully represented. How he was able to grab the dirt poor and against the wall farmers of places like Kansas and the desperately poor of the small towns of the ‘Rust Belt’ as cannon fodder voters for a party that has not represented plebian interests since at least the 1870’s is worthy of study. The second was his notion, parliamentary-centered to be sure, of a ‘vanguard’ party. What? Karl Rove as some kind of closet Leninist? No. However, his proposition that the Republican party should cater to its social conservative base and drag whoever it could in their wake is a piece of political wisdom that leftists should think through more. That is a much better political approach than to rely on the current dominant ‘popular front’ strategy of organizing on the basis of the lowest common denominator issues whittled down to a meaningless point just to avoid antagonizing the Democrats instead of fighting for what is necessary. Yes, one can sometimes learn something from one’s political adversaries- Adieu, Karl.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
REBELS IN THE RISE OF EARLY CAPITALISM
BOOK REVIEW
PRIMITIVE REBELS, E. J. HOBSBAWN, W.W. NORTON AND CO., NEW YORK, 1959
The recently deceased British historian E.J. Hobsbawn, notwithstanding his unrepentant Stalinism to the end, wrote many interesting historical studies in his very long career. The book under review, Primitive Rebels, was an early effort to trace the sociological roots of rebellion in the period of the rise of capitalism. We all know that the development of the capitalist mode of production as it started in Europe was both a long and uneven process. The way various sections of the poor in European society, mainly rural and small town workers, responded and adjusted to its demands is the core of this study. Not all resistance movements of the time led naturally to the three great political movements that defined the plebian respond to early capitalism-socialism, communism and anarchism- but those are the ones that drew masses of people around their programs and that is the focus of this work.
Professor Hobsbawn divided his study into two basic parts. The agrarian response, particularly in heavily agrarian Southern Europe, and the urban response, particularly in the small towns of Northern Europe, where much of capitalist development gained a huge foothold. Although there are some similarities in the response of both components local conditions such as tradition, geography and custom played a key role in whether the response became an organized one or faded in the onslaught. To that end he touches upon the history of social banditry and millennialism in the agrarian milieu and the strong pull of anarchism, especially in Spain, on the other. His case study on peasant anarchism in the period of the Spanish Civil War is worth the attention of Marxists in order to buttress their case for why that political response (or, better, non-political response) was totally inadequate in the face of the necessity of taking state power in order to defeat Franco.
The strongest part of the book is in his study of the urban plebians, their rituals and their revolutionary organizations. Here the theories and practice of the great 19th century revolutionary Louis Blanqui and his followers draws Hobsbawn’s interest. Even stronger is his study of the relationship between religion, mainly of the non-conforming sort, and the development of the organized labor movement in Britain. This goes a long way to explaining why the British labor movement was stalled, and still is stalled, in its tracks. In the end, however, the great lesson to be drawn from this work concerns today. I would ask where are the pockets of resistance to late capitalism comparable to those that emerged under early capitalism and how will they response to the effects of ‘globalization’ of the capitalist mode of production. We await our chronicler of that subject.
PRIMITIVE REBELS, E. J. HOBSBAWN, W.W. NORTON AND CO., NEW YORK, 1959
The recently deceased British historian E.J. Hobsbawn, notwithstanding his unrepentant Stalinism to the end, wrote many interesting historical studies in his very long career. The book under review, Primitive Rebels, was an early effort to trace the sociological roots of rebellion in the period of the rise of capitalism. We all know that the development of the capitalist mode of production as it started in Europe was both a long and uneven process. The way various sections of the poor in European society, mainly rural and small town workers, responded and adjusted to its demands is the core of this study. Not all resistance movements of the time led naturally to the three great political movements that defined the plebian respond to early capitalism-socialism, communism and anarchism- but those are the ones that drew masses of people around their programs and that is the focus of this work.
Professor Hobsbawn divided his study into two basic parts. The agrarian response, particularly in heavily agrarian Southern Europe, and the urban response, particularly in the small towns of Northern Europe, where much of capitalist development gained a huge foothold. Although there are some similarities in the response of both components local conditions such as tradition, geography and custom played a key role in whether the response became an organized one or faded in the onslaught. To that end he touches upon the history of social banditry and millennialism in the agrarian milieu and the strong pull of anarchism, especially in Spain, on the other. His case study on peasant anarchism in the period of the Spanish Civil War is worth the attention of Marxists in order to buttress their case for why that political response (or, better, non-political response) was totally inadequate in the face of the necessity of taking state power in order to defeat Franco.
The strongest part of the book is in his study of the urban plebians, their rituals and their revolutionary organizations. Here the theories and practice of the great 19th century revolutionary Louis Blanqui and his followers draws Hobsbawn’s interest. Even stronger is his study of the relationship between religion, mainly of the non-conforming sort, and the development of the organized labor movement in Britain. This goes a long way to explaining why the British labor movement was stalled, and still is stalled, in its tracks. In the end, however, the great lesson to be drawn from this work concerns today. I would ask where are the pockets of resistance to late capitalism comparable to those that emerged under early capitalism and how will they response to the effects of ‘globalization’ of the capitalist mode of production. We await our chronicler of that subject.
Monday, August 13, 2007
TROUBLE IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE
COMMENTARY
ABOLISH THE BRITISH MONARCHY, STATE CHURCH AND HOUSE OF LORDS
In the normal course of events news from England’s Buckingham Palace, the seat of the British monarchy, does not directly concern socialist militants except in a propagandistic way. Most of the news lately has concerned the ‘plight’ of poor Prince Harry (or is it Prince William?) and his non-deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan with his tank unit. However another more recent piece of news permits me to make some points about the socialist attitude toward those ‘revered’ English institutions of British royalty, the established Anglican Church and the moribund House of Lords.
I will admit that I have received this news second hand but Queen Elizabeth’s eldest grandson Peter Phillips, son of her daughter Princess Anne, has become engaged to a Canadian woman. Nothing extraordinary there. However in the convoluted process of the British royal succession Peter Phillips stands number ten in line to the throne. That, again, would be neither here nor there except that the woman he proposes to marry, Autumn Kelly, is a strongly self-professed Catholic. And there is the rub. Although Peter's real chances of getting to be the ’once and future king’ are just a shade better than mine apparently if he marries the Catholic woman without some form of renunciation he violates British law. According to the Act of Settlement of 1701 (the one that brought Queen Anne, daughter of the papist James II, to the throne) no British monarch can marry a papist- a Roman Catholic. Thus, either Peter Phillips has to renounce his right to the throne or Autumn has to renounce her religious beliefs. Attempts, including one last year, to rescind that law have failed. And that is where socialists have a duty to comment.
Strange to have to say in the year 2007 but socialists, while hostile to religion on principal, are opposed to religious tests for anyone- including marrying into royalty. A great part of the struggle during the heroic days of the rise of the bourgeoisie and the fight for the Enlightenment centered on this very question of state support of, and interference in, the private realm of religion. But that is not the main point. In England the head of state, in this case the queen, is also the head of the state church. This brings me to the real argument. Despite the so-called aura of tradition and despite its alleged benign symbolic place the real fight here is to abolish the monarchy. When Oliver Cromwell and his friends established the Commonwealth during the English Revolution one of the important acts, if not the most important act, was the abolishing of the monarchy exemplified by the beheading of Charles I. I, however, do not believe that Cromwell spent enough time trying to round up Charles' sons, who later during the counter-revolution became Charles II and James II, in order to eliminate (or at least curtail) the chances of restoration. So here is my proposal. British militants take note. In order for the kids, Citizen Peter Phillips and Citizen Autumn Kelly, to get married life off to the right start-ABOLISH THE BRITISH MONARCHY, ABOLISH THE STATE CHURCH and ABOLISH THE HOUSE OF LORDS. In short, finish the tasks of the old English Revolution of the 1600’s. Those are our tasks, among others, in the British Isles.
ABOLISH THE BRITISH MONARCHY, STATE CHURCH AND HOUSE OF LORDS
In the normal course of events news from England’s Buckingham Palace, the seat of the British monarchy, does not directly concern socialist militants except in a propagandistic way. Most of the news lately has concerned the ‘plight’ of poor Prince Harry (or is it Prince William?) and his non-deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan with his tank unit. However another more recent piece of news permits me to make some points about the socialist attitude toward those ‘revered’ English institutions of British royalty, the established Anglican Church and the moribund House of Lords.
I will admit that I have received this news second hand but Queen Elizabeth’s eldest grandson Peter Phillips, son of her daughter Princess Anne, has become engaged to a Canadian woman. Nothing extraordinary there. However in the convoluted process of the British royal succession Peter Phillips stands number ten in line to the throne. That, again, would be neither here nor there except that the woman he proposes to marry, Autumn Kelly, is a strongly self-professed Catholic. And there is the rub. Although Peter's real chances of getting to be the ’once and future king’ are just a shade better than mine apparently if he marries the Catholic woman without some form of renunciation he violates British law. According to the Act of Settlement of 1701 (the one that brought Queen Anne, daughter of the papist James II, to the throne) no British monarch can marry a papist- a Roman Catholic. Thus, either Peter Phillips has to renounce his right to the throne or Autumn has to renounce her religious beliefs. Attempts, including one last year, to rescind that law have failed. And that is where socialists have a duty to comment.
Strange to have to say in the year 2007 but socialists, while hostile to religion on principal, are opposed to religious tests for anyone- including marrying into royalty. A great part of the struggle during the heroic days of the rise of the bourgeoisie and the fight for the Enlightenment centered on this very question of state support of, and interference in, the private realm of religion. But that is not the main point. In England the head of state, in this case the queen, is also the head of the state church. This brings me to the real argument. Despite the so-called aura of tradition and despite its alleged benign symbolic place the real fight here is to abolish the monarchy. When Oliver Cromwell and his friends established the Commonwealth during the English Revolution one of the important acts, if not the most important act, was the abolishing of the monarchy exemplified by the beheading of Charles I. I, however, do not believe that Cromwell spent enough time trying to round up Charles' sons, who later during the counter-revolution became Charles II and James II, in order to eliminate (or at least curtail) the chances of restoration. So here is my proposal. British militants take note. In order for the kids, Citizen Peter Phillips and Citizen Autumn Kelly, to get married life off to the right start-ABOLISH THE BRITISH MONARCHY, ABOLISH THE STATE CHURCH and ABOLISH THE HOUSE OF LORDS. In short, finish the tasks of the old English Revolution of the 1600’s. Those are our tasks, among others, in the British Isles.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
GENERAL ROMNEY AND HIS 'TROOPS'
COMMENTARY
THE FRONTLINE ON THE 'WAR ON TERROR' IS APPARENTLY-IOWA
IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
You do not often find much that is unintentionally humorous on the bourgeois presidential political campaign trail but last week, the week of August 5, 2007, ex- Massachusetts Governor and current Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney won the prize. Why? In Iowa, an early and important caucus state in the race for party nominations, an anti-war activist asked the Governor why, given his extreme hawkish defense of the Iraq quagmire and calls for huge increases in the military budget, none of his five sons had seen fit to enlist to fight the ‘war on terror’. Romney’s reply rightly enough included the fact that they were their own agents. Then he tipped overboard. Apparently Romney’s concept of ‘alternative service’ in the war on terror for his sons is to have them run around Iowa in campers ‘fighting’ for his victory to be president. Strange. I do, however, wish that I could have used that argument with my draft board back when I was faced with being drafted for the Vietnam War.
As a socialist I am opposed to reintroducing the draft. And that includes for Romney’s sons. Why? Simple, socialists do not want to give the capitalist state any more ways of enforcing its rule than it already has at present. Another way of putting it in its proper perspective-its a rich person’s wars, but a poor person’s fights. If, however, a draft were reinstituted over our opposition we would reluctantly go along with the other draftees and expect Romney’s sons to be there with us. No exemptions for those pursuing ‘other options' as 'chicken hawk' Vice President Cheney so succinctly put it when asked why he did not enlist for his generation's war-Vietnam. Fat chance of that, right? I would note that those who either have not fought in a war or have not had to be faced with the prospect of fighting in one should be very circumspect about having some other father’s son or daughter fight that war for them. Nevertheless it may almost be a law of capitalist human nature that the farther away from the battle field these ‘sunshine’ hawks are the more belligerent they are. But to take the pressure off the poor Romney boys and their consciences our best bet is- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal from Iraq.
THE FRONTLINE ON THE 'WAR ON TERROR' IS APPARENTLY-IOWA
IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
You do not often find much that is unintentionally humorous on the bourgeois presidential political campaign trail but last week, the week of August 5, 2007, ex- Massachusetts Governor and current Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney won the prize. Why? In Iowa, an early and important caucus state in the race for party nominations, an anti-war activist asked the Governor why, given his extreme hawkish defense of the Iraq quagmire and calls for huge increases in the military budget, none of his five sons had seen fit to enlist to fight the ‘war on terror’. Romney’s reply rightly enough included the fact that they were their own agents. Then he tipped overboard. Apparently Romney’s concept of ‘alternative service’ in the war on terror for his sons is to have them run around Iowa in campers ‘fighting’ for his victory to be president. Strange. I do, however, wish that I could have used that argument with my draft board back when I was faced with being drafted for the Vietnam War.
As a socialist I am opposed to reintroducing the draft. And that includes for Romney’s sons. Why? Simple, socialists do not want to give the capitalist state any more ways of enforcing its rule than it already has at present. Another way of putting it in its proper perspective-its a rich person’s wars, but a poor person’s fights. If, however, a draft were reinstituted over our opposition we would reluctantly go along with the other draftees and expect Romney’s sons to be there with us. No exemptions for those pursuing ‘other options' as 'chicken hawk' Vice President Cheney so succinctly put it when asked why he did not enlist for his generation's war-Vietnam. Fat chance of that, right? I would note that those who either have not fought in a war or have not had to be faced with the prospect of fighting in one should be very circumspect about having some other father’s son or daughter fight that war for them. Nevertheless it may almost be a law of capitalist human nature that the farther away from the battle field these ‘sunshine’ hawks are the more belligerent they are. But to take the pressure off the poor Romney boys and their consciences our best bet is- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal from Iraq.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
THE MALE LIBERAL POLITICAL BLOGOSPHERE?
COMMENTARY
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Apparently the latest tempest in a teapot in the blogosphere is the gap between the number of well-known male, mainly liberal, political bloggers and their female counterparts. At a recent Daily Kos liberal blogger gabfest there was reportedly a heated discussion on ‘being female while blogging’. A number of media commentators have also picked up on this issue for discussion. The gist of the argument is that like other forms of political expression and technologically-driven communications males swamp females in their rates of participation and linkage. Nevertheless, somehow, somewhere someone got the quaint notion that the ‘information superhighway’ was going to be a neutral vehicle that would give all segments of society equal ‘voice’. Well, okay, we are very familiar with the notion that some other forces than the seemingly mundane class struggle form the basis for the political decisions of the liberal intelligentsia and their hangers-on. But why would anyone assume that in a still very sexually discriminatory society that males would not dominate the ether. I do not like it, nor should you, but this society, despite some real gains for women, is still in an affirmative action, special case mode in relationship to woman’s role in society. The liberal political blogosphere merely reflects that unfortunate reality. Needless to say it is one more battle that socialists and others have to fight.
As an aside, this campaign season has seen more than its share of blather about the effects that organized liberal blogging has had on presidential politics. While I obviously appreciate the technology that allows for wide-spread use of the Internet and blogging for a whole variety of reasons this is hardly the lynchpin to social change. A useful tool? Yes. The way to organize social change? No. Call me old-fashioned but from all I see and read on the question of blogging influence I just do not see it. Raising money? Obviously. Getting quick information access to many people? Yes. But the nuts and bolts of political organizing mean that there has to be face to face encounters with real people and real live discussion and polemic. And that does not mean a yearly Kos meeting or its socialist equivalent. Nor does it mean reliance on the average bilious liberal political blog reader. One of the interesting statistics that has come out of this male/female blogger gap is that the average liberal political blog reader, much like his talk radio conservative counterpart, is about 43 years old and has a family income of $80,000 and a chip on his shoulders. I would assume that proportionally the same statistics would be borne out in regard to the average leftist male blog reader. In short ‘blog potatoes’. No revolution will occur based on those kinds of numbers. Where are the youth? They are in iPod/cellphone/video nation. Methinks we may be in a little trouble fighting for a socialist future if these numbers hold up.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Apparently the latest tempest in a teapot in the blogosphere is the gap between the number of well-known male, mainly liberal, political bloggers and their female counterparts. At a recent Daily Kos liberal blogger gabfest there was reportedly a heated discussion on ‘being female while blogging’. A number of media commentators have also picked up on this issue for discussion. The gist of the argument is that like other forms of political expression and technologically-driven communications males swamp females in their rates of participation and linkage. Nevertheless, somehow, somewhere someone got the quaint notion that the ‘information superhighway’ was going to be a neutral vehicle that would give all segments of society equal ‘voice’. Well, okay, we are very familiar with the notion that some other forces than the seemingly mundane class struggle form the basis for the political decisions of the liberal intelligentsia and their hangers-on. But why would anyone assume that in a still very sexually discriminatory society that males would not dominate the ether. I do not like it, nor should you, but this society, despite some real gains for women, is still in an affirmative action, special case mode in relationship to woman’s role in society. The liberal political blogosphere merely reflects that unfortunate reality. Needless to say it is one more battle that socialists and others have to fight.
As an aside, this campaign season has seen more than its share of blather about the effects that organized liberal blogging has had on presidential politics. While I obviously appreciate the technology that allows for wide-spread use of the Internet and blogging for a whole variety of reasons this is hardly the lynchpin to social change. A useful tool? Yes. The way to organize social change? No. Call me old-fashioned but from all I see and read on the question of blogging influence I just do not see it. Raising money? Obviously. Getting quick information access to many people? Yes. But the nuts and bolts of political organizing mean that there has to be face to face encounters with real people and real live discussion and polemic. And that does not mean a yearly Kos meeting or its socialist equivalent. Nor does it mean reliance on the average bilious liberal political blog reader. One of the interesting statistics that has come out of this male/female blogger gap is that the average liberal political blog reader, much like his talk radio conservative counterpart, is about 43 years old and has a family income of $80,000 and a chip on his shoulders. I would assume that proportionally the same statistics would be borne out in regard to the average leftist male blog reader. In short ‘blog potatoes’. No revolution will occur based on those kinds of numbers. Where are the youth? They are in iPod/cellphone/video nation. Methinks we may be in a little trouble fighting for a socialist future if these numbers hold up.
WHERE DID THOSE AK-47'S GO?
COMMENTARY
Apparently the American military juggernaut is arming both sides in the Iraqi conflict. What? Well, news has recently come out from the General Accounting Office (GAO) that something like 200, 000 AK-47 assault rifles- the most popular (and useful) weapon in the world for the common soldier- are missing along with plenty of other war material. Now a few thousand rifles mislaid in a war is just ‘breakage’ as they say in the shipping business. 200, 000 missing rifles (enough for several divisions in conventional military terms) that are suppose to be in the hands of the Iraqi security forces , however, is quite another matter. The Pollyanna-ish GAO is worried that such quantities might fall into the wrong hands, that is, the various insurgency groups operating in Iraq. Hello! One can be damn well sure that one way or another, through the black market, stealing or by being given them by those selfsame Iraqi security forces that a significant number have found, or will find, their way into insurgent hands. If we needed one more reason to call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq here it is , in living color.
Apparently the American military juggernaut is arming both sides in the Iraqi conflict. What? Well, news has recently come out from the General Accounting Office (GAO) that something like 200, 000 AK-47 assault rifles- the most popular (and useful) weapon in the world for the common soldier- are missing along with plenty of other war material. Now a few thousand rifles mislaid in a war is just ‘breakage’ as they say in the shipping business. 200, 000 missing rifles (enough for several divisions in conventional military terms) that are suppose to be in the hands of the Iraqi security forces , however, is quite another matter. The Pollyanna-ish GAO is worried that such quantities might fall into the wrong hands, that is, the various insurgency groups operating in Iraq. Hello! One can be damn well sure that one way or another, through the black market, stealing or by being given them by those selfsame Iraqi security forces that a significant number have found, or will find, their way into insurgent hands. If we needed one more reason to call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq here it is , in living color.
ON THE QUESTION OF MULTICULTURALISM-AMERICAN STYLE
COMMENTARY
RECENT HARVARD STUDY PRODUCES DISTURBING RESULTS
As a professed socialist I know that our ultimate aim is to mix the various peoples of the world, their institutions and the way they look at the world in order to benefit humankind as a whole. In short, we are decidedly in favor of the concept that has entered into the political vocabulary as multiculturalism. With this proviso –we know that the material basis for such solidarities as expressed above require a totally different form of social organization and use of ‘social’ capital than currently exists. Nevertheless we support multilingualism, international acts of solidarity and ‘diversity’ cultural events as steps in the right direction. We have no interest in the ‘superiority’ of one language over another, one race over another, one nation over another or one culture over another.
That said, a recent study concerning this very question of multiculturalism in America has been the subject of some agony by liberals and delight by conservatives. Professor Robert Putnam of Harvard, well-known for his now classic study of the breakdown of civil solidarity in America in “Bowling Alone”, has concluded a massive long time survey that indicates that the more heterogeneous a society (like the United States, for example) the less likely that the various social, ethnic and racial groups that make up that society will coalesce and work together to create a greater unitary civil society. Of course, as a quintessential liberal these conclusions have frightened the good professor and he has been campaigning to lessen the impact of his study. Conservatives, obviously, delight in these conclusions and will use this information to deny the value of affirmative action, immigration, bilingualism, etc.
We, however, will take the study for what it is worth. As a good indicator, for an academic study, of how far we have to go to get to those goals mentioned in the first paragraph. Whether the sociological methodology behind Professor Putnam’s work is politically reliable is an open question. Some of it seems to be the same old academic ‘hat trick’ methodology that, unfortunately for the professor, went astray when confronted with political and social reality. And that is the point. Liberals, through such programs as affirmative action, changes in the educational curriculum and the mere fact of celebrating diversity through recognition of various cultural events formerly neglected, truly believe that these actions would be enough to make a multicultural society. In short, if everyone made 'nice' things would be nice. Even an off hand look at the social composition of most educational institutions in America including those of higher learning, housing patterns and cultural events could have confirmed the professor’s thesis without the paperwork. The only significant place, important for us, where there is mingling is in the workplace. That is to the good. And that is added confirmation about why we have to organize those workplaces for socialism.
RECENT HARVARD STUDY PRODUCES DISTURBING RESULTS
As a professed socialist I know that our ultimate aim is to mix the various peoples of the world, their institutions and the way they look at the world in order to benefit humankind as a whole. In short, we are decidedly in favor of the concept that has entered into the political vocabulary as multiculturalism. With this proviso –we know that the material basis for such solidarities as expressed above require a totally different form of social organization and use of ‘social’ capital than currently exists. Nevertheless we support multilingualism, international acts of solidarity and ‘diversity’ cultural events as steps in the right direction. We have no interest in the ‘superiority’ of one language over another, one race over another, one nation over another or one culture over another.
That said, a recent study concerning this very question of multiculturalism in America has been the subject of some agony by liberals and delight by conservatives. Professor Robert Putnam of Harvard, well-known for his now classic study of the breakdown of civil solidarity in America in “Bowling Alone”, has concluded a massive long time survey that indicates that the more heterogeneous a society (like the United States, for example) the less likely that the various social, ethnic and racial groups that make up that society will coalesce and work together to create a greater unitary civil society. Of course, as a quintessential liberal these conclusions have frightened the good professor and he has been campaigning to lessen the impact of his study. Conservatives, obviously, delight in these conclusions and will use this information to deny the value of affirmative action, immigration, bilingualism, etc.
We, however, will take the study for what it is worth. As a good indicator, for an academic study, of how far we have to go to get to those goals mentioned in the first paragraph. Whether the sociological methodology behind Professor Putnam’s work is politically reliable is an open question. Some of it seems to be the same old academic ‘hat trick’ methodology that, unfortunately for the professor, went astray when confronted with political and social reality. And that is the point. Liberals, through such programs as affirmative action, changes in the educational curriculum and the mere fact of celebrating diversity through recognition of various cultural events formerly neglected, truly believe that these actions would be enough to make a multicultural society. In short, if everyone made 'nice' things would be nice. Even an off hand look at the social composition of most educational institutions in America including those of higher learning, housing patterns and cultural events could have confirmed the professor’s thesis without the paperwork. The only significant place, important for us, where there is mingling is in the workplace. That is to the good. And that is added confirmation about why we have to organize those workplaces for socialism.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
THE BRITISH ARMY FURLS THE UNION JACK IN NORTHERN IRELAND-A CAUTIONARY TALE
COMMENTARY
Last week, the week of July 30, 2007, the British Army ended its 38 year occupation of Northern Ireland not with a bang but a whimper. That event has created a certain amount of hand wringing in academic and media circles around the lessons that the American government might learn from the British “counterterrorism” experience. After all, although there are a thousand differences between the occupation by the British in the North and today’s American occupation of Iraq, the mission of both armies, in the end, was the same-to fight ‘terrorism’. The British would have seemed to have had the simpler task, given the geographical, historical, linguistic and cultural affinities between the occupation army and the population as compared to the nightmare scenarios of the Americans being clueless about the local tensions in Iraq and a long way from home to boot. Nevertheless what united them is their dogged pursuit of the inevitably thankless and seemingly endless task of keeping sectarian forces in check by the jackboot. The British did not learn that lesson and it should come as no surprise that the Americans, seemingly willfully, refuse to learn it either.
The trials and tribulations of imperial administration are, however, not really what interests me here. Hell, the British and Americans administrations went into these adventures with their eyes open and with the ‘sweet’ illusion that both affairs would be the usual walkover. What interests, and worries, me are the ramifications of both the late British occupation in Northern Ireland and the one in Iraq today for those of us opposed to imperialism. Needless to say that no important element in the reformist British Labor Party, including the ‘darlings of the left’ in the left wing of that party ever raised the slogan British Troops Out of the North Now as a serious slogan during the whole period of occupation. As far as I can tell very few to the left of the British Labor Party ever unequivocally proclaimed that elementary slogan either (I would like to hear on this if I am incorrect). I do not mean over the last few years when that a was cheap way to appear militant on the Irish question. I am talking about times like 1969 when “the troubles” started or 1972 when all hell broke loose. Or even the time of the Bobby Sands-led hunger strikes. The net effect of the recent British withdrawal is that, after 38 long hard years, the British imperialists were able to leave unbowed and not as a result of political struggle by the British left to force them out. That, my friends, is the real meaning for the American struggle. In 38 years will our grandchildren still be calling for the American withdrawal from Iraq or are we going to take the situation hand well before that time. It is our call.
Last week, the week of July 30, 2007, the British Army ended its 38 year occupation of Northern Ireland not with a bang but a whimper. That event has created a certain amount of hand wringing in academic and media circles around the lessons that the American government might learn from the British “counterterrorism” experience. After all, although there are a thousand differences between the occupation by the British in the North and today’s American occupation of Iraq, the mission of both armies, in the end, was the same-to fight ‘terrorism’. The British would have seemed to have had the simpler task, given the geographical, historical, linguistic and cultural affinities between the occupation army and the population as compared to the nightmare scenarios of the Americans being clueless about the local tensions in Iraq and a long way from home to boot. Nevertheless what united them is their dogged pursuit of the inevitably thankless and seemingly endless task of keeping sectarian forces in check by the jackboot. The British did not learn that lesson and it should come as no surprise that the Americans, seemingly willfully, refuse to learn it either.
The trials and tribulations of imperial administration are, however, not really what interests me here. Hell, the British and Americans administrations went into these adventures with their eyes open and with the ‘sweet’ illusion that both affairs would be the usual walkover. What interests, and worries, me are the ramifications of both the late British occupation in Northern Ireland and the one in Iraq today for those of us opposed to imperialism. Needless to say that no important element in the reformist British Labor Party, including the ‘darlings of the left’ in the left wing of that party ever raised the slogan British Troops Out of the North Now as a serious slogan during the whole period of occupation. As far as I can tell very few to the left of the British Labor Party ever unequivocally proclaimed that elementary slogan either (I would like to hear on this if I am incorrect). I do not mean over the last few years when that a was cheap way to appear militant on the Irish question. I am talking about times like 1969 when “the troubles” started or 1972 when all hell broke loose. Or even the time of the Bobby Sands-led hunger strikes. The net effect of the recent British withdrawal is that, after 38 long hard years, the British imperialists were able to leave unbowed and not as a result of political struggle by the British left to force them out. That, my friends, is the real meaning for the American struggle. In 38 years will our grandchildren still be calling for the American withdrawal from Iraq or are we going to take the situation hand well before that time. It is our call.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
MORNING IN AMERICA-MORNING LINE, THAT IS
COMMENTARY
EXTRA, EXTRA-GET THE MORNING LINE ON THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Well, I have my sporting blood up this morning. It seems to be the time of year when not much is doing on the ‘real’ political circuit so that I have time to engage in a little speculation on the odds for the 2008 presidential election. Thus I can do a little ‘think’ piece here to while away the summer doldrums. One of the virtues of this exercise is that while I can win or lose money on various electoral propositions I do not have to actually vote for any of these people. There are, indeed, some very big benefits to being a workers party propagandist theses days.
As we know there are now at least eight candidates on the Democratic side and at least nine on the Republican side so that this early trying to handicap those races would be madness. What today’s morning line is about is which party- the Democratic or Republican- will win the presidency in 2008. Now even those like me who only hold their noses at bourgeois politics would be hard pressed to deny that the Democrats -after what will be eight years of George Bush- should be in the cat bird seat. As one Republican candidate is quoted as saying the Democrats have started to take measurements for new drapes in the White House. Let me make a few points, however, that should sober up even my liberal friends about the political realities today.
We all like to use the phrase about the unacknowledged elephant in the room to highlight some obvious problem that is better left unstated. In this case the Democrats have three-the continuing disproportionality caused by the anti-democratic Electoral College; the women and/or black question; and, the way the likely major issue of the 2008 campaign Iraq and national security may cut for the Democrats.
The rank inequity of the Electoral College system of election may rank as about number 106 on a list of reasons that socialists would put together for why this bourgeois democratic system has to be replaced- but it is on the list. The aristocratically-derived Electoral College is probably the most blatantly anti-democratic aspect of the original frame of government. However, despite all the moaning and groaning in 2000 over the Bush thievery, no one to my knowledge has seriously put forth the idea of replacing it with a more democratic formula and a truer sense of proportionality in regard to the make-up of the Congress. In any case if one looks at the numbers that Republicans start with in the South and the interior West then, as has been the case in presidential politics for a while, this is already an uphill fight for the Democrats. Sure there may be some more blue in red states, etc. but the political reality is no matter how popular you are these are the real numbers. Just ask Al Gore.
Let us face it unless Al Gore makes some kind of last minute decision to entry the Democratic race this one is really about Hillary and Obama. That means the most likely Democratic candidate will either be a white woman or a black man. This is new at the presidential level. But let us face some very hard realities. In a time of perceived national security needs will a woman do? And while it is possible that hard core Democrats will find no problem with a woman as their lead candidate does that hold true for the electorate as a whole? Throw in the Hillary-haters and Clinton fatigue factor and there is a very big question about whether a woman can be elected in 2008. And whether that particular woman can get elected.
On the Obama factor let us not kid ourselves- this is a deeply racist country that is probably more segregated today that 40 or 50 years ago in the things that matter like schools and housing. Even having a white mother does not good here. Moreover, as far as politics go the questions of special black oppression like education, housing, jobs etc. that desperately need to be addressed have fallen off the political map. Watch for some very ugly general election campaigning by the Republicans if either Hillary or Obama is nominated.
You and I, dear reader, have had our fill of Iraq. We want the troops out now. However, the opinion polls that show this same desire to get out do not reflect a favored direction on the various strategies put forth for getting out. The Republicans will be hurt by the Iraq fiasco but unless Dick Cheney or Jeb Bush jumps in none of the contenders is personally responsible for the damn war. They can distance themselves adequately if they have a plan for withdrawal or some such thing. Richard Nixon was able to do so in 1968 and again in 1972 without actually having any plan at all for withdrawal from Vietnam-and won. So anything is possible. Moreover, the Democrats have been so wishy- washy of late in their responses to Bush’s strategy that people in general may not give them a break. So Iraq may not cut so favorably for the Democrats as they might think, especially in the heartland where many of the troops come from. Add the ringer of the economy upstaging the war as the central issue and all hell could break loose.
There you have it, dear reader. Today I would place the odds on a Democratic presidency at 7/5 in their favor. Any takers?
EXTRA, EXTRA-GET THE MORNING LINE ON THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Well, I have my sporting blood up this morning. It seems to be the time of year when not much is doing on the ‘real’ political circuit so that I have time to engage in a little speculation on the odds for the 2008 presidential election. Thus I can do a little ‘think’ piece here to while away the summer doldrums. One of the virtues of this exercise is that while I can win or lose money on various electoral propositions I do not have to actually vote for any of these people. There are, indeed, some very big benefits to being a workers party propagandist theses days.
As we know there are now at least eight candidates on the Democratic side and at least nine on the Republican side so that this early trying to handicap those races would be madness. What today’s morning line is about is which party- the Democratic or Republican- will win the presidency in 2008. Now even those like me who only hold their noses at bourgeois politics would be hard pressed to deny that the Democrats -after what will be eight years of George Bush- should be in the cat bird seat. As one Republican candidate is quoted as saying the Democrats have started to take measurements for new drapes in the White House. Let me make a few points, however, that should sober up even my liberal friends about the political realities today.
We all like to use the phrase about the unacknowledged elephant in the room to highlight some obvious problem that is better left unstated. In this case the Democrats have three-the continuing disproportionality caused by the anti-democratic Electoral College; the women and/or black question; and, the way the likely major issue of the 2008 campaign Iraq and national security may cut for the Democrats.
The rank inequity of the Electoral College system of election may rank as about number 106 on a list of reasons that socialists would put together for why this bourgeois democratic system has to be replaced- but it is on the list. The aristocratically-derived Electoral College is probably the most blatantly anti-democratic aspect of the original frame of government. However, despite all the moaning and groaning in 2000 over the Bush thievery, no one to my knowledge has seriously put forth the idea of replacing it with a more democratic formula and a truer sense of proportionality in regard to the make-up of the Congress. In any case if one looks at the numbers that Republicans start with in the South and the interior West then, as has been the case in presidential politics for a while, this is already an uphill fight for the Democrats. Sure there may be some more blue in red states, etc. but the political reality is no matter how popular you are these are the real numbers. Just ask Al Gore.
Let us face it unless Al Gore makes some kind of last minute decision to entry the Democratic race this one is really about Hillary and Obama. That means the most likely Democratic candidate will either be a white woman or a black man. This is new at the presidential level. But let us face some very hard realities. In a time of perceived national security needs will a woman do? And while it is possible that hard core Democrats will find no problem with a woman as their lead candidate does that hold true for the electorate as a whole? Throw in the Hillary-haters and Clinton fatigue factor and there is a very big question about whether a woman can be elected in 2008. And whether that particular woman can get elected.
On the Obama factor let us not kid ourselves- this is a deeply racist country that is probably more segregated today that 40 or 50 years ago in the things that matter like schools and housing. Even having a white mother does not good here. Moreover, as far as politics go the questions of special black oppression like education, housing, jobs etc. that desperately need to be addressed have fallen off the political map. Watch for some very ugly general election campaigning by the Republicans if either Hillary or Obama is nominated.
You and I, dear reader, have had our fill of Iraq. We want the troops out now. However, the opinion polls that show this same desire to get out do not reflect a favored direction on the various strategies put forth for getting out. The Republicans will be hurt by the Iraq fiasco but unless Dick Cheney or Jeb Bush jumps in none of the contenders is personally responsible for the damn war. They can distance themselves adequately if they have a plan for withdrawal or some such thing. Richard Nixon was able to do so in 1968 and again in 1972 without actually having any plan at all for withdrawal from Vietnam-and won. So anything is possible. Moreover, the Democrats have been so wishy- washy of late in their responses to Bush’s strategy that people in general may not give them a break. So Iraq may not cut so favorably for the Democrats as they might think, especially in the heartland where many of the troops come from. Add the ringer of the economy upstaging the war as the central issue and all hell could break loose.
There you have it, dear reader. Today I would place the odds on a Democratic presidency at 7/5 in their favor. Any takers?
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
GEORGE'S TRILLION DOLLAR FOLLY
COMMENTARY
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Militant leftists oppose the Iraqi occupation out of a fundamental opposition to American imperialism. We oppose the capitalist system out of a conviction that it needs to be replaced by a socialist system that will do better by the mass of humanity and its pressing needs and to let the human potential flower. In the normal course of events we place the monetary cost of imperialist wars as a secondary factor in our opposition. Nor do we make the argument, acting as de facto advisors to the imperialist state, that such wars are merely a matter of mistaken policy and that the resources used for war could be better spent on relieving the vast problems of human misery. Hell, we know that and will take the appropriate action when we take power. However a little news item from the Congressional Budget Office has to make any working person take notice. The analysts at that agency have published, at the request of Congress, various estimates about the final costs of the American occupation of Iraq. And it isn’t pretty. Under the most conservative scenario the expected real costs of the war will be at least one trillion dollars. Now we all know that this estimate may be off by a hundred billion here or there and that one trillion dollars does not go as far as it use to but in anyone’s book that is a lot of money. So now we have the spectacle, in addition to the massive causalities and long term occupation that may have to be fought by our grandchildren, a debt that will take generations to pay off. All under the premise of getting rid of one rogue tin pot dictator, Saddam Hussein, and bringing ‘democracy’ to Iraq. Some neo-cons may say that is cheap at the price but just to be contentious I would say that this is not cost effective. No one, least of all a militant leftist, will cry over the demise of Saddam and his ilk, that is for sure but if one needs an additional argument for getting rid of the irrational capitalist system and its political agents here it is. In the meantime the task of the day is still the Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal from Iraq.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Militant leftists oppose the Iraqi occupation out of a fundamental opposition to American imperialism. We oppose the capitalist system out of a conviction that it needs to be replaced by a socialist system that will do better by the mass of humanity and its pressing needs and to let the human potential flower. In the normal course of events we place the monetary cost of imperialist wars as a secondary factor in our opposition. Nor do we make the argument, acting as de facto advisors to the imperialist state, that such wars are merely a matter of mistaken policy and that the resources used for war could be better spent on relieving the vast problems of human misery. Hell, we know that and will take the appropriate action when we take power. However a little news item from the Congressional Budget Office has to make any working person take notice. The analysts at that agency have published, at the request of Congress, various estimates about the final costs of the American occupation of Iraq. And it isn’t pretty. Under the most conservative scenario the expected real costs of the war will be at least one trillion dollars. Now we all know that this estimate may be off by a hundred billion here or there and that one trillion dollars does not go as far as it use to but in anyone’s book that is a lot of money. So now we have the spectacle, in addition to the massive causalities and long term occupation that may have to be fought by our grandchildren, a debt that will take generations to pay off. All under the premise of getting rid of one rogue tin pot dictator, Saddam Hussein, and bringing ‘democracy’ to Iraq. Some neo-cons may say that is cheap at the price but just to be contentious I would say that this is not cost effective. No one, least of all a militant leftist, will cry over the demise of Saddam and his ilk, that is for sure but if one needs an additional argument for getting rid of the irrational capitalist system and its political agents here it is. In the meantime the task of the day is still the Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal from Iraq.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
THE SCHOOL OF DEMOCRACY?
COMMENTARY
IRAQI PARLIAMENT ADJOURNS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Sometimes life is exceedingly unfair. Today, July 31, 2007, I was all prepared to present my morning line on the odds for the upcoming 2008 presidential elections when a quick look at the newspaper informed me that the august Iraqi Parliament had adjourned until September. So I had to quickly scrap that lead and make comment here on this remarkable occurrence. Oh, I know, legislative bodies do this all the time for a myriad of reasons-some good, some bad. That is not the point, although I have noted in an earlier commentary that this desire for long vacations seems to be the only thing that the Iraqi parliamentarians have learned from their American mentor. Moreover, it took an apparent mini-civil war by the Bush Administration for the Iraqis not take an originally planned two month break in order to show that they had truly have assimilated the meaning of democracy.
Well, Markin, get to the point. One month, two months what does it matter, right? Perhaps, dear reader, you have forgotten that as part of the deal to continue to fund the war this spring the Congress ‘adamantly’ insisted that come hell or high water the Iraqis had to pass some ‘benchmarks’ (sure, I know, it sounds like something out of the education curriculum guidebook, maybe Laura has some input). Those included oil legislation, everyone making 'nice' with everyone else and for a least one Iraqi soldier or policeman to go out into the Baghdad neighborhoods without half the 82nd Airborne Division beside him (or her, if that may be the case). Needless to say none of this has occurred, is likely to occur or is anyone desirous of having it occur. That September 15th report by General Petreaus and Ambassador looks like it is going to have to be really ‘sexed-up’ to give Congress a reason not to go screaming in the night. But we already know the deal there so it will not come as any surprise to us when the Bush Administration asks for and is given ‘a little more’ time come September. Say, January 20, 2009, at least. The real question, as I have posed before, pose now, and will continue to pose until the troops are out is what are WE going to do about it?
IRAQI PARLIAMENT ADJOURNS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Sometimes life is exceedingly unfair. Today, July 31, 2007, I was all prepared to present my morning line on the odds for the upcoming 2008 presidential elections when a quick look at the newspaper informed me that the august Iraqi Parliament had adjourned until September. So I had to quickly scrap that lead and make comment here on this remarkable occurrence. Oh, I know, legislative bodies do this all the time for a myriad of reasons-some good, some bad. That is not the point, although I have noted in an earlier commentary that this desire for long vacations seems to be the only thing that the Iraqi parliamentarians have learned from their American mentor. Moreover, it took an apparent mini-civil war by the Bush Administration for the Iraqis not take an originally planned two month break in order to show that they had truly have assimilated the meaning of democracy.
Well, Markin, get to the point. One month, two months what does it matter, right? Perhaps, dear reader, you have forgotten that as part of the deal to continue to fund the war this spring the Congress ‘adamantly’ insisted that come hell or high water the Iraqis had to pass some ‘benchmarks’ (sure, I know, it sounds like something out of the education curriculum guidebook, maybe Laura has some input). Those included oil legislation, everyone making 'nice' with everyone else and for a least one Iraqi soldier or policeman to go out into the Baghdad neighborhoods without half the 82nd Airborne Division beside him (or her, if that may be the case). Needless to say none of this has occurred, is likely to occur or is anyone desirous of having it occur. That September 15th report by General Petreaus and Ambassador looks like it is going to have to be really ‘sexed-up’ to give Congress a reason not to go screaming in the night. But we already know the deal there so it will not come as any surprise to us when the Bush Administration asks for and is given ‘a little more’ time come September. Say, January 20, 2009, at least. The real question, as I have posed before, pose now, and will continue to pose until the troops are out is what are WE going to do about it?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
THE TROOPS WILL NOT BE HOME FOR CHRISTMAS, AGAIN
COMMENTARY
Okay, let us go by the numbers. On a few occasions over the past several months I have stated that there will be no significant troop withdrawal from Iraq until January 20, 2009, if then. Some of my liberal friends, in the afterglow of their parliamentary victory in the 2006 midterm Congressional elections, talked among themselves about my need to get a little rest and psychiatric help on hearing this ‘prediction’. Then came the Iraq Study Group Report. You remember that little booklet that was to cure all the ills of the Iraq disaster in 79 easy lessons. I caustically noted that they would find that report under some White House couch when Bush vacated the premises in 2009. Again, my liberal friends scratched their heads and said something really needed to be done for the poor lad. After all James Baker, Poppy’s fixer, and Lee Hamilton and other grey beards and blue-haired ladies of the establishment were giving the advice. The Bushies did not even wait a respectful time before they unceremoniously tossed that sacred text into the nearest waste paper basket and came up with the ‘surge’ strategy, a.k.a. escalation in Iraq.
Then came the so-called ‘showdown’ this spring over the war budget appropriations. Even then my dear friends cast a skeptical eye in my direction and hid the silverware. You see, as part of the fall out from the budget appropriation wrangling Congress was able to ‘insist’ on being given progress reports as the price for continued funding for the war. That, my friends, is where we are now. But hold on, the so-called interim report issued in mid-July had to be so ‘sexed-up’ that it was meaningless. Now come the tom toms out of Baghdad telling us not to expect too much in the mid-September mandated report. And here is the clincher. American Ambassador Crocker and American head military honcho in Iraq General Petreaus want the classic ‘more time’ for the dust to settle on the effectiveness of the ‘surge’ strategy. Moreover, now they are talking about mid- 2008 as the ‘real’ evaluation nodal point. Egad. If that is the case we had better start talking about 2010 for a drawdown.
Now is all of the above a matter of, “I told you so”? Well, sure, a little. That is half the fun of politic. Right? Is it also all about the superiority of the socialist method in analyzing political events and figuring out what to do about them? Sure, socialist theory is always a useful tool in that regard. But, frankly, as much as that may help, it does not take a post graduate degree in Marxist Studies to figure out what is going on here. Soldiers, from time immemorial, have always had one goal-Victory. Anything short of annihilation of their own forces, and sometimes even that, is not good enough. Soldiers want to win wars not matter how screwed up they are by the civilians. They want more soldiers, more materials, and more time to produce victories. American presidents, especially those ending their second terms, are always scratching for their place in history. Right now Bush is running neck and neck with Millard Fillmore. He has no where else to go. That is why he rolled the dice for the ‘surge’ and why he will ‘listen’ to his generals to the end. This happy confluence between flaky president and frustrated military is the nut of the matter. And Congress? And the Democrats? Hell, at this point they literally do not matter. They can take over the mess in 2009 and are welcome to it. We, on the other hand, have immediate business that will not wait 18 more months. Once again, and I address this personally for the first time to my liberal friends- BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS. Or, at least, get out of our way. And, as always, if you want to fight for immediate withdrawal from Iraq you had better form committees to link up with the fighting rank and file soldiers and sailors to get them the hell out of there. Way before Christmas.
Okay, let us go by the numbers. On a few occasions over the past several months I have stated that there will be no significant troop withdrawal from Iraq until January 20, 2009, if then. Some of my liberal friends, in the afterglow of their parliamentary victory in the 2006 midterm Congressional elections, talked among themselves about my need to get a little rest and psychiatric help on hearing this ‘prediction’. Then came the Iraq Study Group Report. You remember that little booklet that was to cure all the ills of the Iraq disaster in 79 easy lessons. I caustically noted that they would find that report under some White House couch when Bush vacated the premises in 2009. Again, my liberal friends scratched their heads and said something really needed to be done for the poor lad. After all James Baker, Poppy’s fixer, and Lee Hamilton and other grey beards and blue-haired ladies of the establishment were giving the advice. The Bushies did not even wait a respectful time before they unceremoniously tossed that sacred text into the nearest waste paper basket and came up with the ‘surge’ strategy, a.k.a. escalation in Iraq.
Then came the so-called ‘showdown’ this spring over the war budget appropriations. Even then my dear friends cast a skeptical eye in my direction and hid the silverware. You see, as part of the fall out from the budget appropriation wrangling Congress was able to ‘insist’ on being given progress reports as the price for continued funding for the war. That, my friends, is where we are now. But hold on, the so-called interim report issued in mid-July had to be so ‘sexed-up’ that it was meaningless. Now come the tom toms out of Baghdad telling us not to expect too much in the mid-September mandated report. And here is the clincher. American Ambassador Crocker and American head military honcho in Iraq General Petreaus want the classic ‘more time’ for the dust to settle on the effectiveness of the ‘surge’ strategy. Moreover, now they are talking about mid- 2008 as the ‘real’ evaluation nodal point. Egad. If that is the case we had better start talking about 2010 for a drawdown.
Now is all of the above a matter of, “I told you so”? Well, sure, a little. That is half the fun of politic. Right? Is it also all about the superiority of the socialist method in analyzing political events and figuring out what to do about them? Sure, socialist theory is always a useful tool in that regard. But, frankly, as much as that may help, it does not take a post graduate degree in Marxist Studies to figure out what is going on here. Soldiers, from time immemorial, have always had one goal-Victory. Anything short of annihilation of their own forces, and sometimes even that, is not good enough. Soldiers want to win wars not matter how screwed up they are by the civilians. They want more soldiers, more materials, and more time to produce victories. American presidents, especially those ending their second terms, are always scratching for their place in history. Right now Bush is running neck and neck with Millard Fillmore. He has no where else to go. That is why he rolled the dice for the ‘surge’ and why he will ‘listen’ to his generals to the end. This happy confluence between flaky president and frustrated military is the nut of the matter. And Congress? And the Democrats? Hell, at this point they literally do not matter. They can take over the mess in 2009 and are welcome to it. We, on the other hand, have immediate business that will not wait 18 more months. Once again, and I address this personally for the first time to my liberal friends- BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS. Or, at least, get out of our way. And, as always, if you want to fight for immediate withdrawal from Iraq you had better form committees to link up with the fighting rank and file soldiers and sailors to get them the hell out of there. Way before Christmas.
*A SHORT NOTE ON THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF THE WHITE COLLAR WORKERS
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia' entry for Richard Sennett's book,"The Culture Of New Capitalism".
COMMENTARY
One of the tenets of classical Marxism is that the industrial working class- those who produced the mass goods of society- are the central agency for leading the revolution against capitalism and creating the conditions for a socialist society. In their enthusiasm for this social change Marxists, including this Marxist, never expected that capitalism would be holding on as tight as it has. This development has had many causes that I have gone into elsewhere and is not germane to the point of this commentary. What is germane is that with the long term extension of the capitalist mode of production some significant changes have occurred in the infrastructure of the system, particularly in the advanced capitalism countries. The prime example is, as almost always the case when talking about modern capitalism, the United States. There has been a long term gradual but steady conversion of the old model industrial plant to the new technologically driven service industry. Here, think Wal-Mart.
One would think that the conversion from the old top down hierarchical system that industrial capitalism demanded to that of a service economy with a more and better educated workforce and with increased technological skills that this system would have become obsolete. Not so according to in an article in the New York Review of Books, August 16, 2007, entitled "They’re Micromanaging Your Every Move" (reviewing "The Social Life of Information" by John Seely Brown; "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream" by Barbara Ehrenreich; and, "The Culture of the New Capitalism" by Richard Sennett). The gist of the article is that the new technologies are spinning off software that permit a small elite of managers and ‘super star’ technocrats to control white collar work in the manner of the old industrial system. I have not personally read the books discussed there yet but it is apparent, and has been for a while, that we need to account for these dramatic changes in the workplace. And first things first- we desperately need to organize the Wal-Mart workers-that is for sure. Read this article or one of these books
COMMENTARY
One of the tenets of classical Marxism is that the industrial working class- those who produced the mass goods of society- are the central agency for leading the revolution against capitalism and creating the conditions for a socialist society. In their enthusiasm for this social change Marxists, including this Marxist, never expected that capitalism would be holding on as tight as it has. This development has had many causes that I have gone into elsewhere and is not germane to the point of this commentary. What is germane is that with the long term extension of the capitalist mode of production some significant changes have occurred in the infrastructure of the system, particularly in the advanced capitalism countries. The prime example is, as almost always the case when talking about modern capitalism, the United States. There has been a long term gradual but steady conversion of the old model industrial plant to the new technologically driven service industry. Here, think Wal-Mart.
One would think that the conversion from the old top down hierarchical system that industrial capitalism demanded to that of a service economy with a more and better educated workforce and with increased technological skills that this system would have become obsolete. Not so according to in an article in the New York Review of Books, August 16, 2007, entitled "They’re Micromanaging Your Every Move" (reviewing "The Social Life of Information" by John Seely Brown; "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream" by Barbara Ehrenreich; and, "The Culture of the New Capitalism" by Richard Sennett). The gist of the article is that the new technologies are spinning off software that permit a small elite of managers and ‘super star’ technocrats to control white collar work in the manner of the old industrial system. I have not personally read the books discussed there yet but it is apparent, and has been for a while, that we need to account for these dramatic changes in the workplace. And first things first- we desperately need to organize the Wal-Mart workers-that is for sure. Read this article or one of these books
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
*Sex And The American Presidential Election Campaign-The View From The Extra-parliamentary Left
Click on title to link the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's 1923 article by Leon Trotsky entitled "From The Old Family To The New" for a communist perspective on the need to transform the constrained modern nuclear family to something much more convivial and social.
COMMENTARY
OBAMA AND MITT DUKE IT OVER SEX EDUCATION
For those who expected some lurid copy about the behind the scenes sex lives of the above-mentioned candidates, forget it. This is much more prosaic. It is hard to believe but in the year 2007 this writer is compelled to make a few comments on the latest 'tempest in a teapot' on the campaign trail over the question of the appropriate age at which public institutions should make children aware of sexual issues. Mitt Romney, staking himself out as the king of ‘family value' issues in order to cozy up to the social conservatives, believes that sex and kindergarten students do not mix. Obama, rightly in this case, believes that age appropriate sex education can be started at that age.
Mainly this is a question of public policy guidelines and, as is the case with most current state-mandated sex education programs aimed at the youth, there are opt out procedures for those adults unconformable with public institutions teaching their children about sex. That, however, is not the real political or cultural question. For those of us who learned about sex the hard way on the streets or have been stuffed with erroneous knowledge about sex or have had to face the sometimes bizarre nature of sexual mores under capitalism without much guidance early sex education would seem to be the beginning of wisdom. Ignorance never did anyone any good. This simply program, moreover, is not something that has to wait until we are in a socialist society. The Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky reputely once spoke of the three great tragedies of life-hunger, sex and death. He noted that Marxists had staked out the struggle against hunger as the axis on which to fight. But he also noted that these other issues would be addressed most fully under socialism. And they will. But for now- the more real sex education the better.
COMMENTARY
OBAMA AND MITT DUKE IT OVER SEX EDUCATION
For those who expected some lurid copy about the behind the scenes sex lives of the above-mentioned candidates, forget it. This is much more prosaic. It is hard to believe but in the year 2007 this writer is compelled to make a few comments on the latest 'tempest in a teapot' on the campaign trail over the question of the appropriate age at which public institutions should make children aware of sexual issues. Mitt Romney, staking himself out as the king of ‘family value' issues in order to cozy up to the social conservatives, believes that sex and kindergarten students do not mix. Obama, rightly in this case, believes that age appropriate sex education can be started at that age.
Mainly this is a question of public policy guidelines and, as is the case with most current state-mandated sex education programs aimed at the youth, there are opt out procedures for those adults unconformable with public institutions teaching their children about sex. That, however, is not the real political or cultural question. For those of us who learned about sex the hard way on the streets or have been stuffed with erroneous knowledge about sex or have had to face the sometimes bizarre nature of sexual mores under capitalism without much guidance early sex education would seem to be the beginning of wisdom. Ignorance never did anyone any good. This simply program, moreover, is not something that has to wait until we are in a socialist society. The Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky reputely once spoke of the three great tragedies of life-hunger, sex and death. He noted that Marxists had staked out the struggle against hunger as the axis on which to fight. But he also noted that these other issues would be addressed most fully under socialism. And they will. But for now- the more real sex education the better.
REINSTATE WARD CHURCHILL
COMMENTARY
CONTROVERSIAL PROFESSOR FIRED BY COLORADO REGENTS
Well, they finally got controversial University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill. This week the Colorado Board of Regents acting on a recommendation by the school voted 8-1 to fire him. Ostensibly, as always, it was for some academic infractions but we know the real reason. After 9/11 Professor Churchill had the ‘gall’ to express his opinion in an article that those killed in the World Trade Center attack, as agents of American imperialism and part of the technological infrastructure that drives the machine, were essentially fair game for attack. I will make a brief comment on that analysis below. What is important here is that speech, academic speech in this case, is really what drove the Regents’ decision. That is the real issue and the one that all militants, leftists, and just plain old ordinary garden variety democrats should be howling to the rooftops over. One does not have to be in political agreement with the good professor to know that the whole point of the vaunted freedom of expression that we are desperately trying to defend against the yahoos only works when controversial expression is safeguarded. Otherwise it is just something nice for the bourgeois democrats to point to in their constitution.
As for Professor Churchill’s thesis. Hell, it is so wrong politically it is hard to believe that one who fancies himself a progressive would write it. Let us get this straight-the Al Qaeda actions in New York were not acts of anti-imperialism. They were crimes. Moreover, as I have stated before on other occasions, we are in a life and death struggle against Islamic fundamentalism to win the Islamic masses for socialism. Make no mistake about that. The way to defeat imperialism is not to arbitrarily and indiscriminately blow up civilian targets no matter how symbolic but by painstakingly political organizing to overthrow that system and replace it with a socialist one. In the meantime ordinary people have a right to go about their lives. To compare them to Nazis is over the top. Our fight is elsewhere. And that is the point. These criminal actions were manna from heaven for the imperialists wedding the mass of Americans to Bush and Company. But enough of this. The fight right now is –Reinstate Professor Churchill. Send messages of protest and solidarity with Professor Churchill to the University of Colorado Regents.
CONTROVERSIAL PROFESSOR FIRED BY COLORADO REGENTS
Well, they finally got controversial University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill. This week the Colorado Board of Regents acting on a recommendation by the school voted 8-1 to fire him. Ostensibly, as always, it was for some academic infractions but we know the real reason. After 9/11 Professor Churchill had the ‘gall’ to express his opinion in an article that those killed in the World Trade Center attack, as agents of American imperialism and part of the technological infrastructure that drives the machine, were essentially fair game for attack. I will make a brief comment on that analysis below. What is important here is that speech, academic speech in this case, is really what drove the Regents’ decision. That is the real issue and the one that all militants, leftists, and just plain old ordinary garden variety democrats should be howling to the rooftops over. One does not have to be in political agreement with the good professor to know that the whole point of the vaunted freedom of expression that we are desperately trying to defend against the yahoos only works when controversial expression is safeguarded. Otherwise it is just something nice for the bourgeois democrats to point to in their constitution.
As for Professor Churchill’s thesis. Hell, it is so wrong politically it is hard to believe that one who fancies himself a progressive would write it. Let us get this straight-the Al Qaeda actions in New York were not acts of anti-imperialism. They were crimes. Moreover, as I have stated before on other occasions, we are in a life and death struggle against Islamic fundamentalism to win the Islamic masses for socialism. Make no mistake about that. The way to defeat imperialism is not to arbitrarily and indiscriminately blow up civilian targets no matter how symbolic but by painstakingly political organizing to overthrow that system and replace it with a socialist one. In the meantime ordinary people have a right to go about their lives. To compare them to Nazis is over the top. Our fight is elsewhere. And that is the point. These criminal actions were manna from heaven for the imperialists wedding the mass of Americans to Bush and Company. But enough of this. The fight right now is –Reinstate Professor Churchill. Send messages of protest and solidarity with Professor Churchill to the University of Colorado Regents.
HONOR THE ANTI-FASCIST WOMEN OF THE SPANISH REVOLUTION
BOOK REVIEW
IN THE YEAR OF THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BARCELONA UPRISING HONOR THE ANTI-FASCIST WOMEN FIGHTERS
MEMORIES OF RESISTANCE: WOMEN’S VOICES FROM THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, SHIRLEY MANGINI, YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW HAVEN, 1995
One of the great achievements of the last thirty plus years in the women’s liberation movement has been the dramatic increase in the amount of scholarship on the role of women in history. That is to the good. Even better when the research concerns the role of women in a subject that is one near to my heart-the anti-fascist struggle in the Spanish Civil War. One can argue with the feminist politics that drives Ms. Mangini’s work. One can argue about the somewhat arcane literary/sociological academic methodology that she uses to motivate her study. What cannot be argued is that she has made an important contribution in giving voice to the women of that struggle that has been muted for a long time. While it is true that history is made by the victors, or at least the flow of propaganda is controlled by them, the stories that she has to tell about those women who served, were imprisoned, executed by Franco or forced into external and internal exile makes for compelling reading.
If one knows anything about the role of women in the Spanish Civil War it usually revolves around the personality of the famous Stalinist Dolores Ibarruri-'La Pasionaria'- well known for her slogan-They Shall Not Pass during the siege of Madrid. For those a little more knowledgeable the name of the Anarchist governmental minister Frederica Montseny may come to mind. Beyond that there is generally a blank. Ms. Mangini has filled in those blanks with the stories of lesser known women leaders, militia women, rank and file politicos and those who helped the cause in a myriad of other ways. She vividly describes their roles behind the lines, on the front, in the political organizations, in prison awaiting long sentences or execution, and in exile. Ms. Magnini also describes something that I have found to be generally true of those who fought on the Republican side-male or female-the extreme difficulty in articulating what they did and what happened to them during the Civil War even after the end of the Franco regime in 1975. Obviously, in some cases, those stories will never be told or told in a muted manner. One thing is sure for those of us who cherish the memory of the anti-fascist fight in Spain. General Franco should have never been able to die in his bed.
IN THE YEAR OF THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BARCELONA UPRISING HONOR THE ANTI-FASCIST WOMEN FIGHTERS
MEMORIES OF RESISTANCE: WOMEN’S VOICES FROM THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, SHIRLEY MANGINI, YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW HAVEN, 1995
One of the great achievements of the last thirty plus years in the women’s liberation movement has been the dramatic increase in the amount of scholarship on the role of women in history. That is to the good. Even better when the research concerns the role of women in a subject that is one near to my heart-the anti-fascist struggle in the Spanish Civil War. One can argue with the feminist politics that drives Ms. Mangini’s work. One can argue about the somewhat arcane literary/sociological academic methodology that she uses to motivate her study. What cannot be argued is that she has made an important contribution in giving voice to the women of that struggle that has been muted for a long time. While it is true that history is made by the victors, or at least the flow of propaganda is controlled by them, the stories that she has to tell about those women who served, were imprisoned, executed by Franco or forced into external and internal exile makes for compelling reading.
If one knows anything about the role of women in the Spanish Civil War it usually revolves around the personality of the famous Stalinist Dolores Ibarruri-'La Pasionaria'- well known for her slogan-They Shall Not Pass during the siege of Madrid. For those a little more knowledgeable the name of the Anarchist governmental minister Frederica Montseny may come to mind. Beyond that there is generally a blank. Ms. Mangini has filled in those blanks with the stories of lesser known women leaders, militia women, rank and file politicos and those who helped the cause in a myriad of other ways. She vividly describes their roles behind the lines, on the front, in the political organizations, in prison awaiting long sentences or execution, and in exile. Ms. Magnini also describes something that I have found to be generally true of those who fought on the Republican side-male or female-the extreme difficulty in articulating what they did and what happened to them during the Civil War even after the end of the Franco regime in 1975. Obviously, in some cases, those stories will never be told or told in a muted manner. One thing is sure for those of us who cherish the memory of the anti-fascist fight in Spain. General Franco should have never been able to die in his bed.
*On the Workers Party Slogan- From The Archives- Jim Cannon's View
Click on title to link to the James P. Cannon Internet Archives 1943 article by Cannon on "The Campaign For A Labor Party". There has always been some confusion (probably stemming back to the early revolutionary Communist International days) around the propaganda campaign for the labor party in America, its relationship to the united front and the strategic tasks of revolutionaries here. However, Cannon's review here indicates a pretty good grasp on the subject for, as he has been characterized by so-called leftist political opponents then and now, a mere "trade unionist" leader.
COMMENTARY/DISCUSSION ISSUE
FOR A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT
In a sense the question of a workers party in America is, for now, a question posed to revolutionaries and other radical intellectuals. Why? Given the one-sided nature of the class struggle in America it has at this time a propagandistic thrust. This is a slogan that the organized trade union movement, the natural nucleus for such a formation, has not embraced. Yes, an occasional dissident trade union bureaucrat will throw the slogan out as threat to break from the Democrats if they do not do better by working people but I take that as being merely for public consumption. Those same dissidents are much too busy raising money and providing foot soldiers for Democrats to even take it seriously. Or, my favorite response when I have put the question to them, is to wistfully put the struggle for it it in the great by and by when the workers are 'ready'. We, on the other hand, take it seriously. However, in the interest of clarity it is not out of place to discuss what we mean by the slogan and offer a prognosis on the timing of the creation of that formation. As always a prognosis is just that- an educated guess about the probable direction of the class struggle. Below are a few comments in aid of that discussion.
* In the best of all political worlds we would not be talking about the slogan for a workers party. Again, why? In the early history of the Marxist movement, especially of the Russian Social Democratic movement, Marxists saw themselves as THE workers party and they recruited workers, intellectuals and others on that basis directly to the party based for the most part on the full socialist program. And it worked. Our task as propagandists who are on the margins of the class struggle is to provide an important vehicle to break workers from liberalism. In America that means the Democratic Party. The workers party slogan directs the focus today toward the need to break from bourgeois parties.
*It is interesting to note that at various points in American socialist history communists did not raise this slogan. The early American Communist Party saw itself as a small mass workers party and, although it made many mistakes on the way, recruited directly to the party. In the period when Trotsky and his American followers who ultimately formed the Socialist Workers Party were struggling to create a revolutionary party they sometimes raised the slogan and sometimes did not. When they did not it was in periods of increased class struggle like the great unionization movement of the 1930’s when it was possible to recruit directly to the party. The way I look at is that the workers party slogan is a transitional one connected with the struggle for a workers government. Let us put it this way, it would be very, very nice if the class struggle heated up enough for us to recruit directly to a revolutionary workers party. But we have to be ready for other possibilities.
*I will look into my crystal ball and project, given the American political realities today , that a workers party will most likely be formed in a pre-revolutionary situation. A pre-revolutionary situation is one where the government in power cannot rule in the old normal way and the working classes will no longer put up with the old regime. Workers will be looking for answers and leadership. That is a tall order. That is why we have to be there. This prognosis precludes any thought of a long drawn out workers party development analogous to, let us say, the British Labor Party. And that is the point. Our conception of a workers party is basically not a parliamentary one although we will fight the parliamentary struggle, if necessary. That is for sure. I would offer the Bolshevik Party in Russia in the 1917 revolution as one scenario. There the situation of war, physical hunger and land hunger was so critical that the Bolsheviks were recruiting like mad even though at the beginning of World War I they had been a small outcast organization that barely existed in Russia or in exile, for that matter. They had a history of struggle to be sure and were known to the advanced workers, especially in St. Petersburg, but the point is they grew rapidly because they had a handle on the situation and acted on that understanding.
*One of the most frustrating things that an American follower of Leon Trotsky has to account for is the pervasive tendency for ‘progressive’ politics in America to take a popular front form. A popular front is an amalgam of various classes centered on a minimal program and mainly a vehicle to push the Democratic Party to the ‘left’ (or have it do something). This, for the most part, during the last century has been a conscious policy from social democrats to Stalinists. It takes different forms in different periods –one of the earliest forms was the farmer-labor party in the 1920’s. James Cannon had some interesting and personally revealing comments on how hard the young American Communist Party, after coming up from underground, pursued this policy and almost shipwrecked the party by creating a two-class party. Needless to say the appropriate form of political action with other class forces is the united front. But virtually nobody here in America wants to play that way. Sadly, until we do will be in our current predicament.
*Finally, a word on the workers party and the struggle for power. Separately the workers party slogan is just another garden variety reformist slogan that that above-mentioned dissident trade union bureaucrat could use for protective covering. The program of the workers party must lead inevitably to the struggle for state power if it is to mean anything at all. That is hard medicine but if, as I have speculated above, a workers party will be formed in a pre-revolutionary situation then we better be struggling for power. Pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situations, as we are painfully aware, are too far and few between to accept anything less. Build a workers party that fights for workers government.
COMMENTARY/DISCUSSION ISSUE
FOR A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR A WORKERS GOVERNMENT
In a sense the question of a workers party in America is, for now, a question posed to revolutionaries and other radical intellectuals. Why? Given the one-sided nature of the class struggle in America it has at this time a propagandistic thrust. This is a slogan that the organized trade union movement, the natural nucleus for such a formation, has not embraced. Yes, an occasional dissident trade union bureaucrat will throw the slogan out as threat to break from the Democrats if they do not do better by working people but I take that as being merely for public consumption. Those same dissidents are much too busy raising money and providing foot soldiers for Democrats to even take it seriously. Or, my favorite response when I have put the question to them, is to wistfully put the struggle for it it in the great by and by when the workers are 'ready'. We, on the other hand, take it seriously. However, in the interest of clarity it is not out of place to discuss what we mean by the slogan and offer a prognosis on the timing of the creation of that formation. As always a prognosis is just that- an educated guess about the probable direction of the class struggle. Below are a few comments in aid of that discussion.
* In the best of all political worlds we would not be talking about the slogan for a workers party. Again, why? In the early history of the Marxist movement, especially of the Russian Social Democratic movement, Marxists saw themselves as THE workers party and they recruited workers, intellectuals and others on that basis directly to the party based for the most part on the full socialist program. And it worked. Our task as propagandists who are on the margins of the class struggle is to provide an important vehicle to break workers from liberalism. In America that means the Democratic Party. The workers party slogan directs the focus today toward the need to break from bourgeois parties.
*It is interesting to note that at various points in American socialist history communists did not raise this slogan. The early American Communist Party saw itself as a small mass workers party and, although it made many mistakes on the way, recruited directly to the party. In the period when Trotsky and his American followers who ultimately formed the Socialist Workers Party were struggling to create a revolutionary party they sometimes raised the slogan and sometimes did not. When they did not it was in periods of increased class struggle like the great unionization movement of the 1930’s when it was possible to recruit directly to the party. The way I look at is that the workers party slogan is a transitional one connected with the struggle for a workers government. Let us put it this way, it would be very, very nice if the class struggle heated up enough for us to recruit directly to a revolutionary workers party. But we have to be ready for other possibilities.
*I will look into my crystal ball and project, given the American political realities today , that a workers party will most likely be formed in a pre-revolutionary situation. A pre-revolutionary situation is one where the government in power cannot rule in the old normal way and the working classes will no longer put up with the old regime. Workers will be looking for answers and leadership. That is a tall order. That is why we have to be there. This prognosis precludes any thought of a long drawn out workers party development analogous to, let us say, the British Labor Party. And that is the point. Our conception of a workers party is basically not a parliamentary one although we will fight the parliamentary struggle, if necessary. That is for sure. I would offer the Bolshevik Party in Russia in the 1917 revolution as one scenario. There the situation of war, physical hunger and land hunger was so critical that the Bolsheviks were recruiting like mad even though at the beginning of World War I they had been a small outcast organization that barely existed in Russia or in exile, for that matter. They had a history of struggle to be sure and were known to the advanced workers, especially in St. Petersburg, but the point is they grew rapidly because they had a handle on the situation and acted on that understanding.
*One of the most frustrating things that an American follower of Leon Trotsky has to account for is the pervasive tendency for ‘progressive’ politics in America to take a popular front form. A popular front is an amalgam of various classes centered on a minimal program and mainly a vehicle to push the Democratic Party to the ‘left’ (or have it do something). This, for the most part, during the last century has been a conscious policy from social democrats to Stalinists. It takes different forms in different periods –one of the earliest forms was the farmer-labor party in the 1920’s. James Cannon had some interesting and personally revealing comments on how hard the young American Communist Party, after coming up from underground, pursued this policy and almost shipwrecked the party by creating a two-class party. Needless to say the appropriate form of political action with other class forces is the united front. But virtually nobody here in America wants to play that way. Sadly, until we do will be in our current predicament.
*Finally, a word on the workers party and the struggle for power. Separately the workers party slogan is just another garden variety reformist slogan that that above-mentioned dissident trade union bureaucrat could use for protective covering. The program of the workers party must lead inevitably to the struggle for state power if it is to mean anything at all. That is hard medicine but if, as I have speculated above, a workers party will be formed in a pre-revolutionary situation then we better be struggling for power. Pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situations, as we are painfully aware, are too far and few between to accept anything less. Build a workers party that fights for workers government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)